To prompt or not to prompt: A descriptive study of journaling practices used by nursing students during study abroad trips
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Reflective journaling has been widely used as an education tool. Minimal research has occurred to determine whether prompted or open format journaling nurtures cultural competence.Methods: The efficacy of journal prompts as a pedagogical tool was assessed in this descriptive study. Undergraduate nursing students (N = 49) reflected on their clinical experiences during 2-week trips to Ghana over 4 years (2013-2016). The 1st, 2nd and 4th trip, students were assigned open reflective journaling. The 3rd trip, students were given prompted questions to answer. Entries were coded using Atlas.ti 7.Results: The prompted format produced shorter entries with less rich and reflective substance. Some entries only allowed for two codes. Unprompted entries provided up to 28 codes.Conclusions: During cross-cultural encounters, unprompted journaling may produce the richest results. When prompts are used, the format needs to be carefully selected to facilitate transformative learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".